Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
11 <br /> • Included a financial model that demonstrates a financial sustainability over time to the <br /> Project Feasibility section <br /> The following emails were sent to Travis Myren, from Housing Providers, in reference to <br /> comments on this issue. The emails were shared with the Board prior to meeting: <br /> Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity <br /> I agree with all of the comments below. Speaking on behalf of Habitat, I would agree that <br /> some degree of flexibility is necessary, and that the 60% of AMI cut off makes more sense <br /> than the 50% of AMI, both to accommodate LIHTC projects, and also because Habitat serves <br /> 30-60% of AMI, and we wouldn't want to have to limit all of our projects to 30-50% of AMI in <br /> order to qualify for funding. On average, we serve folks at the 45% of AMI, so maybe <br /> approaching the incomes served for a particular project based on the average of incomes <br /> served, rather than having a cutoff that would eliminate serving those at 50-60% of AMI, would <br /> make more sense. <br /> Maggie West, CEF <br /> I agree with Robert's point/ $ breakdown for placing an emphasis in the resource limits on <br /> projects that serve the lower-income AMI categories, and functionally prioritizing the bond <br /> resources towards those categories. <br /> In terms of the potential double-counting issue, I don't see that becoming a real issue so long <br /> as the special populations served also are designated as populations earning below 80% AMI. <br /> I would imagine that designating specific funds to go towards projects serving special <br /> populations would allow the commissioners some discretion as they approve projects in <br /> determining which category to "count" a project towards, based on what they know about <br /> additional projects coming down the pipeline and other resources that they will hopefully <br /> continue to create to make this small pie (as Dan aptly called it) bigger in order to meet the <br /> county's broader needs! <br /> Dan Levine, Self-Help Real Estate <br /> All good points below. One specific thing I'd add is that it would be wise to have 60% AMI as <br /> cut off rather than 50%, given that it'd align with LIHTC project income limits. More broadly <br /> speaking, my instinct is that it certainly makes sense to emphasize priority groups... but we <br /> want to maintain flexibility so that we don't run short of dollars for projects based on whatever <br /> opportunities emerge, since we're dividing a fairly small pie into multiple slivers. Seems like <br /> dividing this pie by too much risks leaving money on the table that could be effectively <br /> deployed. I'm curious to hear others thoughts on this. <br /> Allan Rosen, IFC <br /> I agree with Robert in the basics. As for the proportions amongst the four categories that can <br /> be further discussed out, as well as how to handle possible double counting of special needs <br /> projects that also meet AMI goals. <br /> Also, there is a near precedent for this. I don't remember all the details, but when one of the <br /> latter RFPs for the earlier bonds was released the county's affordable housing advisory board <br /> recommended a $ set aside, perhaps $1 million, for general population affordable rentals since <br />